The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

From the book of Arthur Lyon Cross, Ph.D., The Macmillan Company, 1914:

A HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND GREATER BRITAIN, page 590.

“The chief agent in negotiating their readmission was Mannaseh Ben Israel a Jew who had settled in Amsterdam. In an interview with Cromwell and the Council, he explained the advantages which his people would bring to England by their financial knowledge, while in addition, he offered on their behalf considerable moneys at five per cent. Although the judges decided that the law did not permit them to live in England, Cromwell admitted them on his own authority. Charles II, who refused to reserve the Protector’s policy, allowed them to open a synagogue in London.”

I would not go as far as blaming Cromwell for the events that followed the readmission of the Jews in the 20th century. However it would have been a lot better for all involved if he did not violate the laws of his time…

It is obvious that the deal was a corrupted one, looking only at the immediate cash benefits of the situation. (The “financial knowledge” part I would not even consider seriously, all methods of operations could and should have been learned and imported easily to England.)

It is also true that Cromwell with his military and political genius should have been looking at the prior political conflicts of the Jews in Europe and draw the proper consequences. (I am specially thinking here the 1492 Spanish expulsion.)

Re: The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

I think, going to war with the Dutch, instead of setting up a republic and forming an alliance with the Dutch, was one of the worst decisions Cromwell made (and his letting te Jew in was part of the bigger picture).

Re: The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

An economy based on usury

By E. Walter Carr

The study of Britain's banking and monetary system is made complex due to so much of the system's activity being conducted in semi-secrecy.

The system of banking that we were taught at school was completely misleading. We were told that our spare money, called savings, was given to the bank for safe keeping. The bank gave us a book in which they entered the amounts. The bank paid us a small interest on this money which it added to our savings annually. We were told that the bank lent our savings to its customers at a higher rate than it gave us, and that the difference was what the bank kept for the wages of its staff, buying and servicing its buildings, producing currency and its profit. This is honourable trading, but it is a very tiny part of what really happens in banking. In practice it is just 'window-dressing', concealing the very large-scale legalised counterfeiting which takes place in banks.

Over the years, statements have been made by many people who had great knowledge of the banking and monetary system which should have set off alarm bells amongst the British people.

'It is well that the people of the Nation do not understand our Monetary and Banking System - if they did, I believe there would be revolution before tomorrow morning.'

2) Nathan Rothschild (1777-1836), banker, said: "Allow me to issue and control a country's money and I care not who writes its Laws."

3) Reginald McKenna, former British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of Midland Bank, said in a speech to shareholders in 1924: "The banks create money when they lend or make a purchase. Those people who have control over the credit of a country hold in the palm of their hand the fate of that country and determine its policies."

How it began

To help with the understanding of our monetary system a little history may be helpful. From the earliest times of commerce, gold has been used for measuring wealth, although it is useless for supporting life, and there are many more useful metals in the world.

Coins were made from gold, and the weight of a coin was the equivalent of a pound's weight of silver. Hence the term Pound Sterling. Silver and copper were sometimes used for coins of lesser value.

Security was always a problem with gold, and towards the end of the Middle Ages holders of large quantities of gold coins or gold bars commenced taking their precious metal to goldsmiths for safe keeping, as these craftsmen possessed the best and biggest safes. The owners of the gold paid a storage charge to the goldsmiths for their service and received receipts for their deposits.

Originally, the owners of the gold withdrew it from the goldsmith's safe as required for their trading and the receipts were cancelled.

After a period of time, however, people became so confident with the safety of their gold in the vaults of the goldsmiths that they commenced exchanging their receipts only. These receipts were called cheques, and this was the beginning of a type of cheque system of money.

As the process of exchanging receipts continued, the gold remained in the goldsmiths' safes doing nothing. The goldsmiths, realising that their safes were continually full of gold, began lending it to other people and charging 10 per cent interest on it. In practice, the goldsmiths did not hand over gold to the new customer but merely issued a receipt for the loaned amount, just as they had done in earlier times to the owner of the gold.

The gold did not belong to the goldsmiths, who were being paid by the owners of it for safe storage - but now they were lending it to other people and receiving 10 per cent interest in addition!

These goldsmiths, mainly Jewish, were the world's first bankers, and soon became very wealthy with the aid of gold which they did not own! That is usury.

When King Edward 1st of England came to the throne in 1272, he soon became aware of the social and economic problems that members of the Jewish community were causing as a result of their usury, and he would not allow himself to be bribed into protecting their money-lending activities. He made a law which stated that Jews could only make a living in England as merchants, farmers, craftsmen or soldiers - the honest occupations followed by their Gentile fellow-subjects.

The Jews were not happy with this law and secretly carried on with their usury - charging up to 20 per cent interest on loans. They also engaged in coin-clipping of gold and silver coins, which they melted down and sold as bullion in Europe, thus putting the English economy in peril by draining gold out of the country.

King Edward lost his patience with this corruption, and in 1290 issued the Statute of Jewry. This ordered all Jews out of the Realm with all of their possessions and forbade them ever to return. Most were given a safe escort to France. (For full details see: The Calendar of Closed Rolls; 18 Edward 1, and Patent Roll, Edward 1, Memo 21, dated 2lst. June 1290).

England resisted the return of the Jews for approximately 350 years - into the start of the reign of Charles 1st (1625). From a letter dated 16th June 1647, written by Oliver Cromwell, we learn that "In return for financial support, will advocate readmission of Jews into England. This, however, is impossible while Charles 1st is living."

After much corruption in the House of Commons, a communist-type remnant of 50 members known as 'the Rump' invested themselves with the 'Supreme Authority of England'.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia confirms that Cromwell was in contact with powerful Jewish financiers in Holland and was paid large sums of money by Menasseh Ben Israel, while another Jew named Fernandez Carvajal was the chief contractor for supplying arms and equipment for Cromwell's New Model Army.

After destroying many of England's fine buildings and executing Charles 1st in 1649, following a mock trial, Cromwell took charge of England as Lord Protector (1653-1658). He was succeeded by his son Richard (1658-59). During the Cromwells' reign, the Jews returned to England, without official permission.

Scotland still had a King Charles II, and on Richard Cromwell's death he was made King of both England and Scotland in 1660. Charles II had no qualms about the Jewish problem and ignored the experience and wisdom of Charles 1st.

Charles II was followed by James II, and during the latter's reign there was much propaganda spread throughout England against him. Most of it came from Holland and this was followed by William (of Orange) landing in England and James II escaping to France (1688). Among those who deserted James II was John Churchill (who became 1st Duke of Marlborough), whom, it is stated in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, received £6,000 per annum for many years from the Dutch Jew Solomon Medina.
************************************************** ******
The real objective of the invading financiers was achieved a few years later in 1694, and was known as the 'Glorious Revolution'. This was a disaster for our nation and occurred when the Royal Consent was given by the Dutch King William III of Orange for the setting up of the Bank of 'England' and the institution of the National Debt. This Royal Charter handed over to an anonymous committee the Royal Prerogative of minting money, converting the basis of wealth to gold, and it enabled international moneylenders to secure their loans on the taxes of our nation.
************************************************** ********
From that moment, the economic machinery was set in motion whereby all wealth was ultimately reduced to the fictitious terms of gold, which the alien Jews controlled. This drained away the life blood of our land and real wealth which was the birthright of the British People.

The political and economic Union of England and Scotland was soon forced on Scotland - for the purpose of suppressing the independent Royal Mint of Scotland and dragging it into the National Debt trap via the Bank of 'England'.

With the whole of Britain now in the grip of the Jewish moneylenders and their hangers-on, there was a danger that, sooner or later, the members of the new joint Parliament, formed in the spirit of their ancestors, might challenge this sordid state of affairs. To provide against this, the party political system was devised, which frustrated national resistance and enabled the wire-pullers to divide and rule - using their newly established financial monopoly power to ensure that their own lackeys - and policies - would secure the limelight and, with enough support from newspapers, pamphlets and banking accounts, carry the day.

Gold continued to be the basis of loans until after World War I. Loans were permitted up to ten times the amounts deposited, and this was known as the 10 per cent Fractional Reserve. In other words, £100 in gold held by a bank enabled it to make up to £l,000 in interest-bearing loans out of 'thin air' to customers with adequate security (collateral).

At 5 per cent interest, the £100 gold deposit would earn £50 interest annually, while the entire £l,000 in loans would be returned to the bank, together with £50 interest as a bank asset - all with just a little ledger work!

Although gold is not now used for coinage, it still plays a mysterious part in finance. On every working day at 11 a.m., a Mr. Rothschild in London, after telephoning around the world for a few minutes to his friends, personally fixes the price of gold for 24 hours. Also our various banknotes all have printed on them below Bank of England: "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of five [or whatever value] pounds."

Modern banking is basically similar to the system which operated at the end of the 17th century but some 97 per cent of transactions today are numbers and codes tapped or electronically entered into computers. Today only about 3 per cent of transactions are done with paper bank notes and metal coins, which have to be bought by banks from the Bank of 'England'.

Banks and building societies are now creating monies for interest-bearing loans out of nothing, without even Fractional Reserve restriction, provided adequate collateral is provided by the borrower. When the loan money is paid back to the bank, together with the interest charge, all is treated as a bank asset, although the bank started with nothing and took no risks, as the transaction was protected with the customer's collateral!

How the system works

A thriving engineering company wishes to expand into an enlarged building and requires £500,000 for the project. It cannot do this out of earnings in the time required, due to heavy taxation on profits, and therefore seeks a loan from the bank.

The bank manager examines the engineering company's balance sheet to satisfy himself that the business is creditworthy. If satisfied, he then asks the company for, say, £600,000 worth of collateral in the form of company shares, property deeds, insurance policies, and so on - all to be lodged in the bank's safe, against the proposed loan.

With loan granted, the bank manager now holds security of £600,000 against a loan of £500,000, and the engineering company secretary walks out of the bank with just a cheque book and the bank manager's permission to write out cheques to pay for the new building.

The bank manager has not loaned the £500,000 from his other customers' deposit accounts, nor has he taken it from his own bank safe. Nothing has changed except for a book entry logging all engineering company collateral items and their values now in the bank safe and an interest-bearing account showing the company owing £500,000 to the bank. The £500,000 facility has been created, not from the bank, which only provided the cheque book, made ledger entries and stored the collateral agreement.

The real value

The real value in terms of goods and services comes from the community. The goods required to build the factory extension are taken from the people, and there is almost £500,000 more money in circulation with interest being paid on it.

The engineering company increases its production with the enlarged factory and pays off the loan debt. The collateral documents are returned from the bank to the engineering company and the £500,000 loan amount plus the agreed interest is entered as an asset of the bank and the interest recognised as income for the bank.

The bank risks little or nothing and ends up with scandalously high profits by a simple method of book-keeping. This is legal counterfeiting in a disgraceful form - it is usury.

There is a perpetual shortage of money in the national economy, and this can only be rectified under the present system with fresh loans at interest - created out of nothing by private banks. This must be stopped, and the accountable government must issue our currency for all transactions without interest in sufficient quantity to match the nation's Gross National Product.

The portion of Britain's National Debt accumulated by usury should be cancelled.

All banks and building societies are controlled in Britain by the Bank of 'England', with half of its directors nominated by the government of the day but with voting power. The other half are secretly appointed and could even be non-British, though having full voting power!

*MPs are not allowed to table questions in Parliament about the Bank of 'England'

Re: The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

Well, the above posting (#4) places Cromwell in a different light.
He was a fully conscious operator for the jews against his national interests. Some people might even refer to him as a “shabes goy” if you don’t mind me saying that…

Now, I really think that Cromwell was at the roots of the problem and the yellow brick road he started his nation on directly led to the 20th century disaster his country is in today.

'It is well that the people of the Nation do not understand our Monetary and Banking System - if they did, I believe there would be revolution before tomorrow morning.'

Henry Ford gave money to Hitler, which financed the war against Britain, a war my Great-Grandfather died in.

Maybe some of your posts about Jewish banking and corruption is true, but surely you have to consider the Church of Rome in all this? Cromwell rebelled against Charles I because Charles wanted all the people under his control, giving monies to him directly. I think it's misleading to say that Cromwell (a non-Jew) was directly involved about bringing about Jewish banking dominance. Cromwell and the Parlimatarians war was precisely against anyone dominating and controlling finance, so it's unlikely that he and the Parlimatarians would change their democratic stance in order to aid the Jews.

Re: The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DV9

Henry Ford gave money to Hitler, which financed the war against Britain, a war my Great-Grandfather died in.

Maybe some of your posts about Jewish banking and corruption is true, but surely you have to consider the Church of Rome in all this? Cromwell rebelled against Charles I because Charles wanted all the people under his control, giving monies to him directly. I think it's misleading to say that Cromwell (a non-Jew) was directly involved about bringing about Jewish banking dominance. Cromwell and the Parlimatarians war was precisely against anyone dominating and controlling finance, so it's unlikely that he and the Parlimatarians would change their democratic stance in order to aid the Jews.

I keep reading from people whose grandfather died in WWII but my first reaction is certainly not running away and joining the republican establishment. I came from a background where this conflict caused immeasurable suffering and loss of life. Still, today my priority is to look at the present, changed environment and realize that either the White Population will go through sensible change in attitude or it will be dissolved.
There is a mountain of accumulated information showing that WWII was instigated, manipulated and was brought into existence by those who became the unchallenged, semi-secret controllers and beneficiaries of this world today.
ALL those nations who participated in this conflict turned out to be the losers. And this obviously includes England, France, Russia and the USA today. All these nations are struggling presently for their own survival.

As far as Cromwell is concerned: I see no other way but to evaluate his act as a highly corrupted one.
There was a reason why the jews were thrown out of England and there was a reason why they were thrown out of Spain and a thousand other places and Cromwell knew about this but he decided to get on the wrong side of this issue, against the very best interest of his nation for one reason only: CASH!

On the day when he allowed the jews to come back to England he planted the seeds of all subsequent, related problems.

Re: The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kennewickman

As far as Cromwell is concerned: I see no other way but to evaluate his act as a highly corrupted one.
There was a reason why the jews were thrown out of England and there was a reason why they were thrown out of Spain and a thousand other places and Cromwell knew about this but he decided to get on the wrong side of this issue, against the very best interest of his nation for one reason only: CASH!

I've read alot of posts about Cromwell siding with the Jews and personnaly I think there are truths in the posts but they leave out all the other issues affecting the people at that time and tend to dive-in aimlessly towards directing blame. Yes, cash may have been the main issue, but it certainly wasn't anything to do with the Jews being entitled to control the finance.

At that time the Roman Church was trying to control finance through people and reap riches/control by promoting their own faith. If there is a sensible conclusion, it has to be that Cromwell and the Parlimatarians were creating Democracy and were against a dictator (Charles I).

You say that, 'Cromwell's act was a highly corrupted one.' It might seem that way now, but it sure wasn't that way in Cromwell's time. Cromwell and the Parlimatarians could be said as being the first Democrates, who opposed dictatorship. We may be in an unhealthy situation at present, but at least we have the voice to air our views and to protest against the things we don't agree with. If the dictators in Cromwell's time had been victorious, we most probably would be living in a system worse than present.

Re: The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

It's worth remembering Adolf 'imself expressed admiration for Cromwell. Make of that what you will.

I remember a German cartoon of the thirties in which a man is giving a dinner-party speech to a tableful of comfortable, complacent, silk-suited types as the ghosts of Cromwell and Napoleon tower behind him. Caption read something like "To England and France, dictatorship is an alien idea!"

Re: The Return of the Jews to England, Cromwell, Charles II, and the 5% Deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by godwinson

It's worth remembering Adolf 'imself expressed admiration for Cromwell. Make of that what you will.

I remember a German cartoon of the thirties in which a man is giving a dinner-party speech to a tableful of comfortable, complacent, silk-suited types as the ghosts of Cromwell and Napoleon tower behind him. Caption read something like "To England and France, dictatorship is an alien idea!"

Who here would support dictatorship?...remember that you could be the persecuted.